live recordings, purely because most bands don't put out live albums. But I suppose you could make the argument that they won't put out live albums or a radio sessions album if they think everybody is downloading them or had downloaded it already. But i tend to get something by a band before I get a bootleg and if they have a live album I'll get that. So for example I brought the daft punk alive 2007 thing even though it's very nearly identical to the coachella show 2006 show I had for quite a while.

And I tend to not be too fussed about not listening to stuff artists disliked once they'd made. Brian Wilson hated most of his smile stuff for 40 years, but as proven by him re-recording it, it's all golddust :) And if it weren't for flea the red hot chili peppers would've binned the lyrics to under the bridge (there only truly great song). So artists sometimes don't know what they're doing.

that deserve to be heard by people. I don't even like radiohead but the glastonbury 97 show that floats around the web is really good. Also some bands encourage fans to tape their shows, e.g. queens of the stone age, of montreal & mudhoney to name a few well known ones. So those are definately 100% fair game, as the only people whom could complain would be like the label or something.

recordings is abit of a grey area anyways. I'm fairly sure that if people aren't paying for it the copyright law becomes like irrelevant or something. The only exception I can think of is leaked stuff but that's due to be released and therefore quite different.

though in most cases a record label can't have much claim over any recordings they did not make themselves (though they can claim these recordings are a breach of contract with the artist or that they in some way hinder their exploitation of their own recorded works) a publisher can certainly claim the the composition is being exploited and distributed in some way against copyright law